You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view some discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us

Thailand and Asia NewsThe News Forum. Thai News, world News and current affairs. Find out what's happening in the world today. For local Thai News check out Bangkok News, Chiang Rai News, Pattaya News and Phuket News.Robust discussion is allowed, but posters should stay on topic and refrain from personal attacks.

(4) Analysis of past political conflicts in Thai society from the 1932 revolution onwards;

(5) In-depth semi-structured interviews with experienced politicians, leaders of current social movements, actors in reconciliation efforts and other relevant stakeholders.

Research findings

(1) identify the root causes of the Thai current political conflict and

(2) issue recommendations for bringing about reconciliation.

1. Root causes of the Thai current political conflict

At the core of the current political conflict lies the existence, in Thai society, of conflicting views on democracy. The first view places emphasis on the electoral process with the executive deriving its legitimacy from “the majority rule”. The opposing view considers “morality and ethical behavior” of the executive more important than its representativeness.

Each view has its subscribers who hold their beliefs for various reasons, including convictions of principle to narrow self-interest. In the context of a society characterized by strong socio-economic inequalities, the conflict between opposing views on democracy has increased in intensity and scope, invading the social and the psychological domains. Both parties consider that the use of power by the other one is not legitimate, for instance, the intervention of the executive in the work of the public scrutiny bodies or the use of coups d‟état. The conflict has permeated all sectors of society, as a result of grassroots mobilization and media bias.

2. Recommendations for bringing about reconciliation

In the context of a deeply polarized society like Thailand‟s, there is no possible solution relying on the identification of who is “right” and who is “wrong”. Since both sides are very likely to maintain their current positions in the short run, what is now urgently needed is to build a “reconciliation climate” by opening up space for public debate so that all parties can exchange opinions about possible solutions to the conflict and create better mutual understanding. This will in turn enable the parties to reach a common position and achieve sustainable peace.

The following conclusions are based on experiences and opinions that still continue to divide parties and invoke strong feelings; they are not ready- made, instant solutions. Instead, they call for cooperation between all parties by engaging in a genuine dialogue.

The reconciliation process should be inclusive of public dialogues at two levels:

(1) dialogue between political representatives and direct stakeholders (such dialogue could take several forms);

(2) the people, by participating in “national forums” to allow people from all sectors to exchange and debate about possible solutions for Thailand and to reflect on the future of Thai democracy and the common political rules it will entail.

Public debate and dialogue are essential elements of reconciliation. Dialogue should focus on at least four short-term and two long-term issues; all six issues should be subject to public debate. The four short-term issues aim at returning Thailand to a normal state of low- intensity conflict; the long-term issues aim at preventing the re-occurrence of violence and moving the country forward.

Short-term issues to be subject to public deliberation

(1) Truth about past violence

The work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Thailand (TRCT) should be encouraged. Its investigation of the violent events that occurred in 2010 and 2011 should be completed within the next six months and the findings, which should not name perpetrators, should be made public when deemed appropriate according to the social and political context. The objective of this dissemination is for Thai society to learn from its past violent events to prevent their re- occurrence in the future.

(2) Amnesty in relation to participation in mass protests

An amnesty for participants in protests, including demonstrators, security officials and their supervisors as well as state officials in charge of implementation of the Emergency Decree should be granted. There are two options to be further deliberated upon:

(1) issue an amnesty bill covering both charges related to the infringement of the Emergency Decree B.E 2548 (2005) and regular criminal law when motivated by political aims such as damage to State or private property or life, or

Hence, both alternatives exclude the issuance of an amnesty for cases related to defamation of the monarchy, which shall still be subject to the regular judicial process.

(3) Restore confidence in the judicial process in accordance with the rule of law: cases initiated by the defunct Assets Examination Committee (AEC)

With regard to judicial cases initiated by the Assets Examination Committee (AEC), there are three possible options:

(1) process cases within the existing regular judicial framework by transferring the cases from the AEC to the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) for further processing, excluding cases that have already reached their final verdicts;

(2) nullify all legal decisions stemming form the work of the AEC and transfer all cases to the regular judicial system without consideration of possible time prescriptions;

(3) nullify all legal decisions stemming from the work of the AEC but do not allow for re-judgment of ongoing or finalized cases.

Whichever solution is to be chosen, there should not be any prosecution of the AEC considering that its actions were in line with its announced mandate at that time.

(4) Common political rules to be agreed upon by all parties

All parties should participate in searching for solutions to improve the country‟s level of democratization and abidance by the rule of law while cautiously avoiding imposing “the justice of the winners”. This could include amendments to important laws and the Constitution, such as measures related to the dissolution of political parties, the selection of personnel serving in independent public organizations, and the process of scrutinizing their work, as well as those specifying the balance of powers between the executive, the legislature and the independent public organizations.

Long-term issues to be subject to public deliberation

(1) Reflect on the future of the Thai “democratic regime with the King as Head of State”

The Thai “democratic regime with the King as Head of State” is the rationale to which all Thais adhere. The Thai public should engage in a dialogue on the features of Thai democracy in the context of persistent opposing views.

(2) Lay the foundations for creating social justice

Particular efforts should be concentrated on reducing socio-economic inequalities and on civic education inclusive of values of tolerance. All parties should cooperate to build the conditions for reconciliation.

The government should

(1) affirm its political will by announcing concrete measures conducive to reconciliation in the short-term;

(2) raise awareness of all parties as to the importance of the process;

(3) offer explanation about the violence and offer compensation to victims of violent events, both financial and psychological; for the latter, memorialization efforts should be made attempting at restoring the dignity of victims through, for example, the construction of a memorial.

All stakeholders should refrain from actions leading to

(1) a climate of defiance towards the law and the existence of a rule of law, such as the use of masses for political aims by illegal means;

(2) mistrust and suspicion among Thai people, such as the feeding of political and social movements that could be seen as attempting to bring about changes to the royal institution.

Also, mass media should be supportive of the reconciliation process and refrain from stirring up new conflicts, especially through one-sided media. Meanwhile, Thai society should not revive the debate about the right- or wrongfulness of the coup d‟état and instead focus on ways to prevent re- occurrence of coups d‟état in the future; the definition of the offence of coup d‟état together with a penalty for committing such offence should be incorporated in criminal law.

At least three factors are crucial in assuring the success of the reconciliation process:

(1) The political will of power-holders dedicated to achieving public interest;

(2) The degree of inclusiveness of the process;

(3) The core question from which the entire conflict stems should be addressed and solved to act as a driving force for democratization.

In addition, the research team recommends, as a first step towards national reconciliation, that the parliamentary subcommittee on national reconciliation launches its own internal debate and, without using majority vote, reaches its preliminary conclusions. The preliminary conclusions should be reported by MPs to their parties, as well as to constituents and society as a whole for further deliberation. The aim is to lead Thai society to come to the realization that reconciliation can only be achieved when all parties agree to take part in a dialogue about possible solutions. An inclusive dialogue is the only process likely to bring about solutions acceptable to all.

Finally, the success of the recommended process will depend on the scope and content of the public debate in Thai society. Not only must legal and judicial aspects of the conflict be discussed, but also its root causes, including a reflection on power relations in Thai society. The reconciliation process must engage all parties within a democratic context allocating space for all parties to express their opinions and debate about the future of the country, find a common destination for all.

Beliefs – Conflicting beliefs related to power and resource allocation in society

Interests – Conflicting attitudes in relation to the pursuit of conflicting interests

How did the conflict turn violent?

Use of power by „both parties‟ for the pursuit of the above-mentioned interests and/or beliefs through means considered illegitimate by the other party

How to initiate a reconciliation process?

Dialogue engaging all parties in a debate about possible solutions to the conflict, the future of Thai democracy including its common political rules

Set of issues to be discussed

1) Truth about past violence

2) Amnesty for cases related to participation in mass protests

3) Restore confidence in the judicial process in accordance with the rule of law: cases initiated by the defunct Assets Examination Committee (AEC)

4) Common political rules to be agreed upon

5) Reflect on the future of the Thai “democratic regime with the King as Head of State”

6) Lay the foundations for creating social justice

__________________
"Slavery is the daughter of darkness; an ignorant people is the blind instrument of its own destruction; ambition and intrigue take advantage of the credulity and inexperience of men who have no political, economic or civil knowledge. They mistake pure illusion for reality, license for freedom, treason for patriotism, vengeance for justice."-Simón Bolívar

The majority don't want to conform to the morality belief system that puts them in a subservient position. Until the elite realise they can't put the genie back in the bottle they will not understand the new world that they are in and will try to spread their fear to others.

It's about time to admit that the current attempt to require people in the nation to "forgive" and "reconcile" with one another by law is doomed to fail.

For a start, none of us should have entertained the hope that a peace effort initiated by either the Pheu Thai Party or Democrat Party _ the two main political poles of the country's politics at the moment _ will be welcome by one or the other. Both parties are too deeply involved in past conflicts to come up with a truly liberated agenda.

While one side bellows "murderers", the other shouts "terrorists". It may be amusing, exasperating or sad to watch but it is foolish to believe these theatrics will lead us anywhere.

As I watched politicians arguing about how they couldn't reconcile with one another in the parliament last week, I kept thinking we have got the sequencing of this task all wrong. The legal side of this reconciliation business should be last on the list of things to do.

A law to grant an amnesty to people involved in these political conflicts should be considered only when reconciliation is no longer an issue _ when reconciliation has become a foregone conclusion and when a vision is clear about what kind of future society we want, how to move forward toward it and how to prevent violent conflicts from obstructing our progress towards that common goal again.

Last week, however, deputy prime minister Yongyuth Wichaidit said the government would go ahead and consider reconciliation proposals based on a report by King Prajadhipok's Institute (KPI) despite the institute's calls for it to create a "conducive atmosphere" and engage in "constructive dialogue" first.

A nationwide public consultation would be a "waste of time," he said.

The KPI's proposals include granting an amnesty for political wrongdoings after the Sept 19 coup and dropping corruption charges lodged by the now-dissolved Assets Scrutiny Committee against the former Thaksin Shinawatra administration.

The study has been described as "controversial" partly because it dares to suggest an amnesty be considered as a measure to resolve past conflicts and deep resentment.

After going through it, however, I don't think the KPI report is that controversial. Indeed, it goes over all the usual grounds of peace-building _ what needs to be done before forgiveness can be granted and people engaged in conflicts can move on and coexist civilly.

I believe people will have to come to terms with the fact that at one point, some kind of legal mechanisms must be worked out to unlock the still conflicted past and allow people to move forward. If the Sept 19 coup makers could enact a law that pardoned itself for killing democracy, a similar mechanism must be possible for people who view themselves as victims of the putsch.

Should the government instigate the amnesty move? I don't think so. In this context, I agree with the KPI's report that a form of dialogue _ a nationwide debate on the institute's study and proposals _ be organised first that will help people, both victims of the conflicts and the public at large, understand the nature of the conflicts and develop a more common goal towards the future.

As the KPI researchers noted in its report, national reconciliation can't be made to happen by a majority of votes in parliament. It can only be achieved by consensus. A series of public consultations for many might sound like a tedious and sluggish process, especially compared to a cabinet's resolution or a passage of a reconciliation law through the parliament. But if it can help us build a long-lasting peace, shouldn't we invest our time in pursuing it?

One thing the KPI researchers noted is an underlying cause of the past political conflicts lies in how people view and interpret democracy differently. While one side emphasises legitimacy through an election, the other believes democratic leadership still needs to rest on honesty and traditional virtues.

I don't think we have tried to address this conflict over the idea of democracy. If the government decides to press ahead and enact a blanket or partial amnesty act now, we will have a possibly sharper conflict over the idea of reconciliation. Will it escalate into "a war of reconciliation" as warned by the KPI? Well, who will want to risk it?

A government panel to monitor recommendations by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) is expected to decide this month on what to do with the report of the House committee on reconciliation which contains proposals made by the King Prajadhipok's Institute (KPI), Deputy Prime Minister Yongyuth Wichaidit said on Tuesday.

The joint sitting of parliament last week passed a resolution to forward the report of the House committee on reconciliation, chaired by Gen Sonthi Boonyaratkalin, to the government to consider taking further action.

The report is based on proposals made by the KPI which was commissioned by the Sonthi committee to conduct a study on ways of achieving reconciliation.

Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra assigned the government panel, chaired by Mr Yongyuth, to look into the report.

Mr Yongyuth said his panel was expected to decide this month whether the government or the House of Representatives should act in compliance with the proposals made in the report from the House committee on reconciliation.

If the decision was for the House of Representatives to do so, it would then consider in what form a reconciliation law should be enacted.

This could be done by calling a special session of the House of Representatives, he said.

A legislation draft to be proposed by the House might not be similar to a reconciliation bill of Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yubamrung, Mr Yongyuth added.

Mr Yongyuth said the reconciliation law, no matter in what form, would not benefit just one particular person, but he did not know whether the law, when in effect, would enable former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra to come home.

The deputy prime minister said a regulation governing compensation for those affected by unrest in the South had been completed and the payment would be made in May.

The compensation for those killed and wounded in political violence would be paid late this month.

Seeing that Thailand already had a National Anti-corruption commission formed I think in 2001, and designed to be truly non-political, what possible reason could the illegal coup leaders have to set up an Assets Examination Committee, purportedly to do the same job? How many coup conspirators assets were examined?

"(1) process cases within the existing regular judicial framework by transferring the cases from the AEC to the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) for further processing, excluding cases that have already reached their final verdicts;"

Just how many cases "reached their final verdicts"?

Methinks some feel they are so clever, not realizing the fence they put around themselves, much as the leader in "The Emperors New Clothes".

ALMOST six years after Thaksin Shinawatra (above) was ousted as prime minister in a coup by royalist generals, it might seem like time to move on. Not a bit of it, Thailand’s politicians seem to think. Legislators have spent the past few weeks arguing obsessively and bitterly about the rights and wrongs of the coup and its long aftermath—all, apparently, in the name of “national reconciliation”. The result, not unexpectedly, is not so much reconciliation as even more recrimination.

National reconciliation has the laudable aim of bridging the chasm that opened up in Thai society after the coup. Politics swiftly descended into colour-coded enmity, with the “red shirts” backing Mr Thaksin and the “yellow shirts” supporting the army, monarchy and, in part, the Democrat Party (DP). The cycles of protest and confrontation culminated in bloody street battles in central Bangkok in April and May 2010 between the red shirts and the police, leaving over 90 people dead.

Right after these events the government of the day, which was led by Abhisit Vejjajiva of the DP, set up a Truth for Reconciliation Commission to look into the killings in Bangkok. Yet to its critics the commission lacked the authority to delve deep, especially into the actions of the police and army. The new government that took over last year, headed by Mr Thaksin’s younger sister, Yingluck Shinawatra, has instead vested its own hopes of reconciliation in a committee of legislators, the House Committee on National Reconciliation (HCNR). It has an inbuilt majority of parliamentarians from Mr Thaksin’s and Ms Yingluck’s Pheu Thai party.

The chair of the HCNR is none other than a general, Sonthi Boonyaratglin, turned member of parliament, who led the coup against Mr Thaksin in 2006. His appointment may have been an attempt at humour, or more probably a bid to give the committee some credibility among anti-Thaksin types. By the standards of a former general, he has tried to sound conciliatory. Recalling that Thailand used to be “a society of love, peace and unity”, he has acknowledged that the political divisions of the past six years have made things “very dangerous”—without ever quite regretting the coup.

Yet however touchy-feely Mr Sonthi now appears, his committee’s proposals, presented to parliament last week, failed to fill the legislators with peace and love. After two days of acrimonious debate, 307 of the MPs supporting the government voted for the committee’s plans, while all those from the DP refused to vote. It left everyone more divided and upset.

Two proposals by Mr Sonthi’s committee are particularly controversial. One is a broad amnesty for those involved in the violence in 2010, and even back to 2006. The other is to drop all corruption charges brought against Mr Thaksin and his administration by the now defunct Assets Examination Committee (AEC), a body set up by the military junta that assumed power after Mr Thaksin’s fall.

The second proposal has enraged the DP, whose members say it has nothing to do with the national interest but is a contrivance to enable Mr Thaksin to return to Thailand after years of self-imposed exile. (He has lived in Dubai to avoid a prison sentence for corruption on charges brought by the AEC.) This week Mr Thaksin was in Laos, with plans to travel to Cambodia to play golf with the local strongman and prime minister Hun Sen, and to hold a rally to which Thai red-shirt supporters were expected to flock.

The DP has called for time for a nationwide debate on these reconciliation proposals, an idea turned down by Ms Yingluck’s government. Democrats see it as further evidence that the committee’s proposals are a ruse to get Mr Thaksin home as soon as possible. The idea of a general amnesty has upset many people. Human Rights Watch, a New York-based lobby group, argues that it “will undermine justice by giving immunity to those responsible for human-rights abuses.”

Nonetheless, the proposals now go to the cabinet for consideration. Ms Yingluck has to tread carefully. She could endorse them. But she also knows how divisive her brother remains in Thailand. His return might easily set off further protests.

Meanwhile, any reconciliation looks even more out of reach in Thailand’s three southernmost provinces, where a Muslim insurgency has raged since 2004. On March 31st car bombs exploded in the city of Yala, killing 14 people and injuring hundreds, the deadliest attack in years. The lethal insurgency cries out for a resolution, yet the politicians in Bangkok only bicker about Mr Thaksin.

The majority don't want to conform to the morality belief system that puts them in a subservient position. Until the elite realise they can't put the genie back in the bottle they will not understand the new world that they are in and will try to spread their fear to others.

You could have fooled me seeing all the lemmings streaming over the border to prostrate themselves before one of the Thai Chinese elite. Just swoping their master from one set of elites to the another. I suppose it is alright thought because it is "their" elites.

Good post. Was thinking about that but you put it in words.
And then, how many of the yellow military court decisions, which were not transparent in any way, would seem to be a joke now? But damage is done.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Notnow

Seeing that Thailand already had a National Anti-corruption commission formed I think in 2001, and designed to be truly non-political, what possible reason could the illegal coup leaders have to set up an Assets Examination Committee, purportedly to do the same job? How many coup conspirators assets were examined?

"(1) process cases within the existing regular judicial framework by transferring the cases from the AEC to the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) for further processing, excluding cases that have already reached their final verdicts;"

Just how many cases "reached their final verdicts"?

Methinks some feel they are so clever, not realizing the fence they put around themselves, much as the leader in "The Emperors New Clothes".

You could have fooled me seeing all the lemmings streaming over the border to prostrate themselves before one of the Thai Chinese elite. Just swoping their master from one set of elites to the another. I suppose it is alright thought because it is "their" elites.

hilarious, apparently it's called Democracy for red retards who never had a clue about politics and how modern democracies should be structured

in their logic, Hitler was a great democrat, and therefore had a mandate to commit all those horrible crimes in the name of Democracy

isn't Democracy great ? it's a like a magic wand that gives you superpower to abuse anything you want

You could have fooled me seeing all the lemmings streaming over the border to prostrate themselves before one of the Thai Chinese elite. Just swoping their master from one set of elites to the another. I suppose it is alright thought because it is "their" elites.

hilarious, apparently it's called Democracy for red retards who never had a clue about politics and how modern democracies should be structured

in their logic, Hitler was a great democrat, and therefore had a mandate to commit all those horrible crimes in the name of Democracy

isn't Democracy great ? it's a like a magic wand that gives you superpower to abuse anything you want

Now I would like to say fock you butters. Your fuc?ing non country belgium had road signals for hitler "this way to france", you bastard.

As you call them, "red retards" have been doing a good job in difficult circumstances. Wonder who is the retard here?

As for calling me and other people who disagree you "fascists" we fuc?ing liberated your fuc?ing lame non country belgium from the fascists. No gratitude then. Suck that onion and die.

Stung by criticism that he is backing reconciliation efforts to get Thaksin Shinawatra back in order to be rewarded with the premiership, Sonthi Boonyaratglin has struck back with claims that certain people are trying to discredit him.

‘IN IT FOR PEACE’: Gen Sonthi Boonyaratglin.

In an exclusive interview with the Bangkok Post, Matubhum Party leader Gen Sonthi, who chairs the ad-hoc House committee on national reconciliation, urged the public to understand he had spearheaded the push for reconciliation as he had a strong desire to see Thais live in peace and harmony.

It was that desire which had spurred him to ask King Prajadhipok's Institute (KPI) to conduct research on solutions to national reconciliation.

"We have learnt a lesson that reconciliation in many countries is reached only when those in conflict fight until one side has a clear advantage over the other.

"If we let our country reach that point, it can do more damage, that's certain. It is time for all Thais to talk to each other for the sake of the nation," Gen Sonthi said.

The reconciliation effort, therefore, will help prevent future violence as there is no political agenda behind it.

"Frankly speaking, I have never travelled to meet Thaksin and talked to him [about the prime minister's job]. I am not that important to Thaksin. What criticism there has been of me is politically motivated rather than factual," the former coup leader said.

Gen Sonthi has been accused by his critics and the opposition Democrat Party of trying to help the former prime minister return home without a two-year jail term sentence hanging over him in exchange for Thaksin supporting Sonthi to become the next government leader.

The accusation spread after the KPI unveiled its proposals to Gen Sonthi's committee. Its recommendations include granting an amnesty to political offenders and dropping corruption charges lodged by the now-dissolved Assets Scrutiny Committee against the Thaksin Shinawatra administration.

The ASC was set up by the coup makers who toppled Thaksin on Sept 19, 2006.

"I have no right or duty to tell anyone to drop corruption charges lodged by the ASC. It is a KPI proposal based on its research findings. We have to accept it," he said.

On April 6, 307 MPs and senators in a joint House sitting voted in favour of forwarding the KPI's proposals on national reconciliation to the cabinet for consideration.

Gen Sonthi said he hoped the cabinet will consider the proposals carefully and come up with effective supporting measures and laws to bring about unity and reconciliation as quickly as possible.

"The government must find a solution on the basis of the principle of unity and reconciliation," he said.

Gen Sonthi urged those who oppose the KPI proposals being vetted by the cabinet to open their minds and accept them as the study on national reconciliation had been conducted in a correct and systematic manner.

The vote upset the KPI, and its secretary-general Bowornsak Uwanno even threatened to withdraw the proposal, a move strongly opposed by Gen Sonthi. The institute should be aware that it had done the best it could and had maintained its neutrality, he said.

Mr Bowornsak earlier said he wanted the House to extend the committee's tenure until the end of the next parliament session to allow the report to be discussed more widely as proposed by KPI.

The rift over the reconciliation plan has raised concern of more street protests as opponents suspect the whole scheme is merely to benefit Thaksin.

But Gen Sonthi was not convinced it would trigger more rallies as "people have learnt a lesson from the past protests and are now able to seek the facts by themselves".

He insisted the atmosphere of corruption and political division in the Thaksin administration six years ago justified the staging of the coup. He warned the army that there are no grounds at the moment for another coup.

"If the military wants to stage a coup again, it must think hard because of the changing complexities of society and the people's acknowledgement of that," he said.

Gen Sonthi denied he was a source of the political conflicts that arose after the Thaksin administration was toppled and culminated in the bloody clashes between the red shirts and security forces two years ago at Ratchaprasong intersection.

In his opinion, he is a victim of a range of people who are trying discredit him to gain political and other benefits for themselves.

Matubhum Party leader Gen Sonthi, who chairs the ad-hoc House committee on national reconciliation, urged the public to understand he had spearheaded the push for reconciliation as he had a strong desire to see Thais live in peace and harmony.

It was that desire which had spurred him to ask King Prajadhipok's Institute (KPI) to conduct research on solutions to national reconciliation."

"We have learnt a lesson that reconciliation in many countries is reached only when those in conflict fight until one side has a clear advantage over the other.

"If we let our country reach that point, it can do more damage, that's certain. It is time for all Thais to talk to each other for the sake of the nation," Gen Sonthi said.

Human Rights Watch’s 2010 report “Descent Into Chaos” documented deaths and injuries resulting from excessive and unnecessary use of lethal force by the security forces and attacks by “Black Shirts,” the armed elements within the UDD. Since the new government took office in August 2011, the focus of criminal investigations has been entirely on the cases in which soldiers were implicated.

To date, the police have found evidence that soldiers were responsible for 18 deaths of civilians, including Red Shirts protesters, medical volunteers, and news reporters. At the same time, despite clear evidence to the contrary, the government claims that there were no armed elements within the UDD.

Worth posting as well.....one wonders how all those soldiers died and got injured....and this on just one day. And before some retard posts it, I know soldiers shot protesters, as i saw it with my own eyes. However, they weren't the only ones with guns.........................

On April 10, 2010, violent street battles broke out in Bangkok after the government of then-Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva attempted to forcibly disperse anti-government protests organized by the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), commonly known as “Red Shirts.” Gunfire and blasts from bombs and grenades killed 19 protesters, six soldiers, and a journalist. At least 569 participants and bystanders, 265 soldiers, and 8 police officers were injured the same day from teargas inhalation, beatings, gunshots, and shrapnel from explosions.

What's needed is for the majority to demand a fully participatory consulation leading to a complete overhaul of Thailand and its systems and priviledges. I believe this can be done with no threat to the existing folks at the top. The 1997 Constitution was the best they had and all it needs is some fine tuning. But what's desparately needed is enforcement of existing laws and a real system of justice - that means the rich and pwerful must start going to jail for their crimes - regradless of who they are and for whom they work. That would be the first big step into bringing this country out of the dark ages and into the modern world. A lot of the other problems would begin to fix themsleves IMO.

__________________
My mind is not for rent to any God or Government, There's no hope for your discontent - the changes are permanent!

Before its two-year term ends in July, the Truth for Reconciliation Commission of Thailand (TRCT) will release its final report, which will include the results of its fact-finding mission involving the political conflict, the panel's chairman said yesterday.

Kanit na Nakorn said that in addition to findings on what happened during the political conflicts that have erupted over recent years, the report will also cover the rehabilitation process for victims.

He said the report would also provide some lessons in the hope that such problems do not recur.

"The TRCT has worked continuously to seek the truth. Our process is based on knowledge, not emotions. This study reflects the root cause of the problems in the economic, social and political sectors, as well as the mass media and the justice process," Kanit explained.

"The study suggests what can be done to bring about reconciliation. However, in order to achieve true reconciliation and peace, all the elements in society have to work together," he added.

Kanit was speaking at the TRCT panel's discussion on "Root Causes of the Conflict Problem and Path to Reconciliation" held yesterday at Bangkok's Rama Gardens Hotel.

Abhisit Vejjajiva's government appointed the panel after the April-May 2010 unrest, which left 91 people dead and 2,000 others injured.

Panel member Somchai Homlaor said at yesterday's event that the middle class played an important role in the political conflict, with the urban middle-class siding with the old capitalists, while the rural middle class stood by the new capitalists.

"In the red shirts' view, the old capitalists are the 'elite', and the new capitalists are middlemen and businesspeople, some of whom run shady businesses and have expanded their roles from local politics to national politics," Somchai said.

TRCT member Thanet Arpornsuwan, the chief researcher on the imbalance in Thailand's power structure, said that unfair distribution of political and economic powers had led to the conflicts. He called for a system in which many social elements can ensure the checks and balances in order to ensure a sustainable democracy.

Supanida Puangpaka, who heads the research team on reform of security organisations, said that if the parties involved in the conflict still wanted to defeat one another, reconciliation would not be achieved. Instead, she said, all sides should be sincere and together find ways to achieve reconciliation. She also said that political reform should be done along with reform of the security sector.

TRCT member Surichai Wan-kaew, who leads the team researching political violence and social dynamism, said yesterday that most of the country's recent political changes took place during former PM Thaksin Shina-watra's tenure. He said the conflicts that began at that time were worsened by the 2006 coup that brought down Thaksin's government. High-stakes political power made conflicts fierce and violent as leaders of the conflicting parties could not afford to lose, he said.